Fl4m3Ph03n1x
Does dyalizer need @spec when a function has @impl?
Background
I have a module that is a GenStage. I am trying to make this module dyalizer compliant but I am not sure if I am going overboard with @spec.
Code
Imagine we have the following code:
@impl GenStage
def init(args) do
{:producer_consumer, nil}
end
This code is the init callback of a GenStage (called after running start_link).
I wonder if I should let it be (because it is clear that it is already using the behaviour) or if I should add further information:
@spec init(any) :: {:producer_consumer, nil}
@impl GenStage
def init(args) do
{:producer_consumer, nil}
end
Questions
- Which of the two version is correct?
- Which version would be better for dialyzer? (does it make a difference at all?)
Marked As Solved
NobbZ
If the spec is a subset of what is described per the callback, then it doesn’t clash. I’m not sure though how dialyzer looks at it, also, as the interface is defined from the outside world, I’d not try to re(de)fine the spec.
Also Liked
sasajuric
You can provide a typespec for behaviour callback functions. If you do so, and some arg or the return type in your spec is not a subtype of the callback spec, dialyzer will emit a corresponding warning. The same will happen if the types inferred from the callback code do not match spec types.
So e.g. the following GenServer code:
@type state :: %{foo: integer}
@spec handle_call(:foo, GenServer.from(), state) :: {:reply, :ok, state}
def handle_call(:foo, _from, state) do
{:reply, :ok, %{state | bar: 1}}
end
Will lead to a dialyzer warning:
Invalid type specification for function 'Elixir.TestServer':handle_call/3.
The success typing is
('foo', _, #{'bar' := _, _ => _}) ->
{'reply', 'ok', #{'bar' := 1, _ => _}}
which means that either the spec or the impl is wrong.
So far, I didn’t got into a habit of writing specs for callbacks, but I’ve been toying with this idea for some time. I think it would help documenting expected callback args, and might help catching some errors.









